Your Madone 7 (signature link) is 1058 grams with bottom bracket bearings, rear brake, and heavy white paint. This is approximately the same weight as the Emonda SL (not SLR) frame only. And the brake isn't weenie at all... brake + bearings have to be close to 200 grams. So that would make the Madone 7 frame solidly below 900 grams, close to 800 grams in clearcoat. Trek claims 725 in vapor coat. So the Emonda weight advantage only exists in the SLR, and even there it's 35 grams.

Not every TFR rider has swapped over, and I think that if you were correct, they would have all switched (with the exception of Cancellara). However, the most popular TFR rider, Jens Voight, is still riding the Madone, and given the big marketing push they're giving him, being his last season, and all, I would think that's the guy they want to push on the Emonda the most!

Seems like you misread or misinterpreted what I wrote.I did not say that aero works in lieu of fitness or that you could not win without it.You certainly need to be as physically prepared as possible in order to win a bike raceWhat I said is that it matters and that a shift is occurring and aero does matter. And it will matter more as more riders get on board with aero technology.It has happened with wheels for sure, I believe that it has also happened with tt gear.You used to be able to go to a tt and only a few guys had dedicated tt bikes with the fastest gear. Go to one now- most all riders have it.I know a good amount of guys don't have the gear- especially 1-2 riders. Often they have to ride whatever s**tbox bike their team gives them. Same for other gear.Pros are no different- they take what they are given and will often choose light over aero. Contador is a prime example of this.I have done that race that you mention more times than I care to count. I would say that I know how to be successful at it. I have finished well and poorly on both fast and slow gear there.I will say that fast gear will make a difference.I will also say that you don't have to choose (if you are buying) you can get light and aero. Look at a Scott Foil or Madone or that new Canyon.

KWalker wrote:

boots2000 wrote:

I agree that for everyday riding an aero frame matters not at all.But for racing I think there is a shift occurring similar to when aero wheels became necessary (or you would be racing at a disadvantage).I did a race that had a bunch of wind and some fast tailwind descending this weekend. I could tell that riders with the full aero kit- aero frame, aero helmet and 2 in 1 type suit, were going faster in these fast sections (they all had aero wheels too- that is old hat).So for racing I recommend getting something aero like a Venge, Madone, Cervelo S3, Felt AR or similar.

There are lots of riders racing at high levels on non aero and even box section wheels just fine. The USA Crits series is often a great example of what people can race successfully while not the latest tech.

You're still overblowing the aero benefit even for amateur racing. The difference on a descent or fast section would mainly be due to large drag sources. I have been fine in very windy races on fast courses with training wheels, a non-aero Cannondale, and a non-aero helmet. This year so far in the races I've done (and I've paid attention because of this aero vs. non-aero debate) only 2 aero bikes have won at the cat 3 level. This weekend the winner of a Pro 1/2 race that featured some extremely fast descending and tailwinds won on a non-aero roundtubed frame without an aero helmet. If these small margins are make or break for a person their tactics, position, or skills must be pretty terrible. Even on the pro level lots of non aero bikes are winning stages where it should "matter" even more. Its nice to have, but it won't win or lose a race most of the time. Aero gear has exploded the past two years and I haven't seen a single rider that was within the margins before all of a sudden start rapidly winning and improving their placings because of a switch.

The main concern I have with this thread is that people are slamming a bike for absolutely ridiculous reasons. Its somehow bad because its not as aero as the Madone, or might weigh the same as a Super Six. The differences people are going on and on about are minor. When compared to top end bikes the frame is really light, it supposedly is very compliant and very stiff, and the geometry is a good middle ground for lots of types of racing/riding. If someone were to be asking for a comparison between the Madone and Emonda then sure, post one of the drag graphs to show what could perhaps be saved if both bikes could be made to fit identical and whatnot, but lets not act like somehow the Emonda is a giant piece of shit that a rider can't win a buttload of races on.

Amateur racers have somehow convinced themselves that all of these details are the keys to success, which is probably some weird sort of cognitive dissonance that stems from actually having to purchase our equipment. It seems to have completely shrouded our judgement regarding new products. The Emonda is a much more advanced and better bike than anything that probably existed in 2012 save for a few of the uber top tier frames (hi-mods, S-Works models, etc.) and it seems to be getting hammered on here, while a bike such as the Felt AR1 is seen as the only bike that one could possibly successfully race on is praised like its a diety. Oddly I know two riders that have ridden both and found the AR1 to be a very sub-par in many areas and several Felt sponsored team members have felt the same way. The bike isn't for them and it could be great for someone else, but great specs online doesn't necessarily equate to anything in real life.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I race my bikes a lot, and do fairly well at it in general. I'm also fortunate enough to own quite a few high end road and MTB bikes. These are 2 separate hobbies. Similar, but separate.

I don't tell myself I need my 6.7's or my Evade to win my next crit. I just like them. So I buy them.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but feel like you're painting with a very wide brush. Sure, there are "those guys" in every area that their fitness is 110% their hurdle to cycling glory that think their biggest issue is their 17lbs bike. We know it's not. But you didn't choose your EVO because it was the first bike you saw. But it also doesn't have much to do with your race results either. You like it. You put cool shit on it. Then you race it. 2 different hobbies. No?

I'm not saying you do, but some of the posts in this thread strongly imply that that stuff matters a lot more than it does. There are lots of considerations when choosing a bike but people often get way bogged down in the details as if they really, really matter as much as they make them out to be. Here in this thread people are figuring out all sorts of reasons to not like a top end bike and most of those reasons have zero verification. No drag data to say this frame is super un-aero, people fretting over minute weight differences, others saying that basically everything about this bike is bad. The internet seems to be entirely comprised of "those guys" lately. The AR1 thread is the best example.

I agree with though- buy what appeals to you the most, race it, and have fun. I could have easily ridden something a lot cheaper or the more basic team color schemes of the non hi-mod bikes, but my frame looks really sweet and I get excited to ride it based on how appealing it is to me on a very superficial level. It would be cool if perhaps it was slightly more aero or had some different features and in a few of the races I did this year it certainly would have helped in some measure, but even if the frame was not aesthetically appealing I wouldn't dismiss its merits because of that. The Evo is not aero and in my paintjob ain't that light, but its got great geo and the frame has won a ton of "best bike" awards in the 3 years its been out. All part of a package.

It's true that spending megabucks warrants careful consideration and hence all shortlisted frames should tick several boxes. If you imply that looking hard into the details doesn't really matter though because it's all in the rider's legs, people who likes the Madone will still find the Emonda a little letdown - if I wanted a frame with skinny tubes I would have went with Cannondale...

I couldn't find in the article that Velolab used standard wheels. But I hope that's what they did!

Looking back at the Parlee data I posted, the difference between the Madone and the Giant is about the same as the difference between the Madone and the Cervelo S5 was there: it's not a specialized aero bike. It's more of a semi-aero. The Parlee Z5, on the other hand, in that test was a far greater wind-bucket (to my dismay -- I like that bike). The Emonda, I expect, would be much more like the Z5. Indeed I'd expect it to be worse. The Emonda has about the biggest down tube I've seen. It looks very much like the Trek-built Gary Fishers the last year those were sold.

This is why I said the Tarmacs do "surprisingly" well. If you look at the bike, it doesn't scream "aero" at you. It's like the Cervelo R5: designed with aero considerations but also to ride well. This is why I'm shocked the pros are using the Emonda. But maybe the ride quality on the Madone isn't as good as they'd been claiming.

I'd love to see a one-inch steel frame undergo the same tests, like my Ritchey Breakaway which gets the vast majority of my miles these days.

It's true that spending megabucks warrants careful consideration and hence all shortlisted frames should tick several boxes. If you imply that looking hard into the details doesn't really matter though because it's all in the rider's legs, people who likes the Madone will still find the Emonda a little letdown - if I wanted a frame with skinny tubes I would have went with Cannondale...

My friend has ridden and raced every Madone model since 2010. He just got an Emonda and is raving about it. So, there's that...

His initial comments are that he likes the geo better and finds it to be slightly more compliant than the Emonda. In specific he moved up a full size and has no spacers now with the H2 geo and a longer wheelbase than before and commented that the front end is a lot more stable over rough surfaces and at high speeds around really fast corners. Not a heavy dude so he can't comment on BB stiffness. He rode both the SLR and SL models and went with the SL with DA9000 because he liked the color schemes better and it is an absolute steal on team discount. $1400 list means cost+10% puts basically even with a CAAD10.

No drag data to say this frame is super un-aero, people fretting over minute weight differences, others saying that basically everything about this bike is bad. The internet seems to be entirely comprised of "those guys" lately. The AR1 thread is the best example.

+1

Although I think "those guys" have been around since the dawn of online forums! Its the internets!

I do wonder where all the hate around the emonda is coming from. Maybe the trek marketing a little over the top. Which big box brand isn't? Can you blame them? They are a corporation trying to sell bikes and make money after all.

I feel bad for the guy who posted his Emonda SL in the gallery and gets all of these negative posts. He clearly is enjoying the bike.

The bike that gets your butt off the sofa and puts a smile on your face is the best bike. Doesn't matter what a magazine says or a forum poster says.

I guess for me at least it's sort of a question of when the trickle down will come. My first carbon frame a decade ago (Giant TCR) was about the same weight as the SL (albeit probably not as stiff, but I'm light so don't much care). We've seen things like the CR1, Addict, SL-1, R3, etc. push the <900g boundary years ago, but what they've learned from those doesn't really seem to translate into lighter, more affordable frames years after the fact.

For all the claims of amazing carbon materials, cutting edge engineering, etc. the results aren't really all that impressive (see McLaren/Specialized partnerships as another example). Not knowing the limitations of the materials/engineering (but also seeing open mold frames come in lighter/substantially cheaper), I expect more. Have we reached a plateau of frame design?

You mean a little bit worse than modern aero road bikes? I was a bit surprised by those results. What does 50s saved over 40k equate to 10-12w?

Remember that according to that same video series shaving your legs saves 70-80s over 40k.

If it's 40 km/hr then that's a 1.4% difference in speed or a 4% difference in CdA assuming flat riding with negligible rolling resistance. Then if the baseline CdA for the Venge is 0.350, then the CdA on the steel bike is 0.365. At 30 mph, that's 21 watts out of 506 watts, or 161 gram-equivalents (0.353 lb) of difference in force. So that puts the steel bike between the semi-aero road bikes (Madone, R5) and the fatter round-tube road frames (Parlee Z5). The Emonda has ellipses perpendicular to the wind, so I certainly would expect it to be no better than the Z5, but of course I don't know.

My friend has ridden and raced every Madone model since 2010. He just got an Emonda and is raving about it. So, there's that...

His initial comments are that he likes the geo better and finds it to be slightly more compliant than the Emonda. In specific he moved up a full size and has no spacers now with the H2 geo and a longer wheelbase than before and commented that the front end is a lot more stable over rough surfaces and at high speeds around really fast corners. Not a heavy dude so he can't comment on BB stiffness. He rode both the SLR and SL models and went with the SL with DA9000 because he liked the color schemes better and it is an absolute steal on team discount. $1400 list means cost+10% puts basically even with a CAAD10.

Assume you mean more compliant than the Madone? I ride an old H1 Madone, demoed an H2 one last year (same size), and found the mile long head tube horrendous, I'd want to go down a size if I went H2, not up! Unless he had 50mm of spacers under the stem on his H1 that must be horrible.

Test rode an Emonda SL 6 black on black yesterday. Still very comfortable compared to my Domane 5 but clearly stiffer, snappier, and livelier. This might just be because the Domane is long and super-absorbing, so compared to a Tarmac there might be less difference. I was amazed at how much of the downtube you could see sticking outwards below the top tube (from above). There is no discussion of aero anything with this frame.

I'm not a racer, just like challenging and spirited solo rides. So just an informal data point here.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum